Plum Crazy

I've read a few comments round and about that suggest that last night's election was some kind of wholesale rejection of liberalism. Let me point a couple of things out:

1. Bush won 51% of the popular vote

2. Kerry and Nader combined won 49% of the popular vote

I think it's fair to say that Kerry and Nader voters represent the liberal contingent. So while 51% is a majority, it's a slim one. I realize that moral issues were a determining factor in this election, but 51% is still a slim majority. That's just reality.

I've also read a few people quote the positively meaningless feel-good fact that Bush won more votes than any other candidate in American history. Yeah, the population is bigger now than it has been at any other time in American history. 51% of a larger population will, in fact, equal more votes than, say, the 54.8% of the smaller population that voted for FDR in 1940. Maybe it's just that I work in finance*, so these things jump right out at me, but I'm really not sure what this fact is supposed to prove. If people were saying that Bush got relatively and absolutely more votes than Clinton, I could understand what that fact is supposed to prove. This one, though, is just lost on me. I know it sounds nice. Maybe that's it's only purpose.

*It actually reminds me a bit of budget games people sometimes try to play. Like "Look, my budget is flat year over year!" Then I point out something like "Yes, but your headcount has decreased, so you're actually spending more per capita." As if I wouldn't pick up on something like that. Bwahahahaha!